- (1.) This is a Defendant's appeal arising out of a suit on the foot of three hypothecation bonds for the recovery of Rs. 7,911-140/-. The first bond was executed on the 14th September, 1931, for a sum of Rs. 700/-. The second is dated the 22nd December, 1932, for Rs. 2,250/- The third is dated the 13th April, 1939, for Rs. 800/-. The same property is hypothecated in all the three mortgages. Pearey Lal and Mst. Bhawani alias Mot Gobmdi are the common mortgagors of these three transactions and lala Bhamandal Das was the common mortgagee.
(2.) The suit was resisted on a number of grounds and no less than eight issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge. In the present appeal, however, we are concerned with only one issue, namely whether the Defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of the term as defined in the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Civil judge has held that the Defendant-Appellant is not an agriculturist and so he is not entitled to the benefits of the Act.
(3.) It appears that one Tika Ram was the original owner of the two mortgaged houses and a proprietary grove. This grove is assessed to a land revenue of Rs. 2-30/- only. On the 11th February, 1915 Tika Ram made a will of has properties He had no male or female issue. Mst. Bhawani was his permanent mistress and Pearey Lal Defendant is his nephew. By the will he made the following provision in respect of his properties: After my death Mst. Bhawani, my kept wife, and after her death, Pearey Lal, my nephew, will be the owner in possession of all the property mertioned in this document. Mst. Bhawani shall have no power to make any kind of transfer or to sell or gift or endow it. So long as she is alive, she will enjoy the income of the property such as rent etc. After the death of Mst. Bhawani Pearey Lal aforesaid shall have all kinds of power to transfer the property in respect of which this will has been made.;